The highest court in the land has ruled in favor of an AFGE local president who challenged the lower court’s implementation of the deadline he missed due to reasons beyond his control.
AFGE Local 1902 President Stuart Harrow is a long-time employee at the Defense Contracting Management Agency. In 2013, he was one of the federal employees who were furloughed during the government shutdown. Citing financial hardship, Harrow filed a claim with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) challenging his six-day furlough. But an administrative judge in 2016 upheld the furlough, prompting Harrow to seek review of the decision to the full MSPB.
As his case was pending, the board lost its quorum and could not issue decisions until May 2022 when it affirmed the administrative judge’s decision. But during the long delay, his work email changed and did not forward new emails to him. He learned about the decision when he went to its website. By then, 60 days had passed. He subsequently filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
But his appeal came more than 120 days after the board’s decision was issued, so he sought an exception to the 60-day deadline. The appeals court, however, dismissed it as untimely, reasoning that it didn’t have the capacity to “excuse a failure to timely file” due to the deadline’s jurisdictional nature.
Harrow took his case to the Supreme Court seeking a decision on whether the deadline was so inflexible – specifically whether the 60-day deadline was a jurisdictional requirement not subject to exceptions or concerns for fairness and justice.
AFGE, which represents federal and D.C. government employees before the Federal Circuit Court, filed an amicus brief in support of the employee. In our brief, we argued that the deadline was not jurisdictional – it was just a claim-processing rule that can be waived. The court should have done an independent analysis of the case instead of erroneously basing its decision on a prior case with an incorrect theory.
“Had the Federal Circuit conducted a proper clear statement analysis, it would have recognized that nothing in the text or context of Section 7703(b)(1)(A) evinces a clear intent by Congress that the 60-day time period for an employee to seek review of a final order or decision of the MSPB should be treated as jurisdictional.”
The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in favor of the employee, saying the lower court shouldn’t have enforced the deadline as Congress has not made it clear that the deadlines are jurisdictional.
“The question presented is whether that 60-day limit is ‘jurisdictional,’ and therefore precludes equitable exceptions,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. “We hold that the limit, like most filing deadlines, is not jurisdictional.”
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Federal Circuit Court for further consideration.
AFGE Council of Prison Locals President Brandy Moore White told lawmakers there’s a whole other side to the discussion of sexual abuse in federal prisons.
Read More
Michael Knowles talks about the importance of electing the candidate that supports federal employees and promotes democracy.
Read More
AFGE Local 2065 empowers workers through organizing.
Read More
